Is it too much to ask that Justin Trudeau, our most popular party leader, take an unambiguous stand against hemming women into an absurd recess of the political sphere?

The invitation to "Justin Unplugged" beckoned "ladies ... to (really) get to know” the Liberal Leader.

By:Semra SeviBrandon Bailey Published on Mon Nov 11 2013

Social media was abuzz last week over “Justin Unplugged,” a fundraiser in which women were “invited to (really) get to know” the Liberal leader. Many interpreted the invitation as affirming that the Liberals are intent on marketing Justin Trudeau as a heartthrob rather than a policy-driven leader. Trudeau
responded
that the advertisement was “tongue-in-cheek.” Having been forced to defend the event is surely indicative that something was amiss here, but what was it?

Perhaps it was tone deafness.

The Liberal Party is no stranger to finding itself under attack for appearing out of touch. It is not particularly novel to aim such an accusation at a party intent on referring to itself as the country’s “natural governing party” despite retaining third party status. Nor is it surprising that the party’s political opponents would pounce on the opportunity to undercut the charismatic leader whose
approval ratings
recently outpaced both Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair.

It would be comforting, from the Liberal perspective, to retreat into the realm of partisan quibbles and pretend the critics are rank-and-file Conservatives. “I’ll take no lessons in respecting women and minorities from the Conservative Party of Canada,”
quipped
Trudeau.

But many Liberals, too, are deeply unsettled by the “Ladies’ Night” event. This is in stark contrast to the controversy surrounding Trudeau’s participation in The Canadian Liver Foundation’s
charity
in 2011 and the Conservative “striptease” attack ad that followed. Then, Liberals were content to roll their eyes at an out-of-context attack and
donated $336,000 to the party
in the following 48 hours. So what is different this time? The party would do well to listen to their critics rather than dismiss their claims as simply ill-founded or politically motivated.

A progressive party cannot pretend, even in some misguided “tongue-in-cheek” spirit, that women’s issues can be compartmentalized into an exclusive sector of the political debate. Reducing the dialogue to prompts such as “what’s your favourite virtue” and adding the allure of “cocktails, candid conversation, and curiosity-inducing ideas” isolates a core demographic of Liberal supporters — indeed, it isolates half of the country! — as if they were a fringe interest group separate from the nation’s pressing issues.

It is difficult to imagine that an advertisement targeted at the general electorate would rely on the nearly overt representation of Trudeau as some sort of teenage sex symbol and on saucy flirtation. An advertisement targeted at women should not be interpreted under a different rubric.

The visceral reaction of many condemning the advertisement as sexist is particularly understandable given that demarcating women’s issues as a separate, and often sensational, category from typical issues is common.

The Munk debates, for example, have long been criticized for failing to meaningfully include women in their events. In
response
, the organizers offered a debate with four prominent women. The subject? Not economics or foreign policy, the usual subjects, which of course could be well debated by both men and women. No, this year, their topic is sensationalist and gender-driven: “Be it resolved, men are obsolete.”

Given this backdrop, is it too much to ask that Canada’s most popular party leader take an unambiguous stand against hemming women into an absurd recess of the political sphere? Instead, Liberals saw their leader participate in an event that either ignored the issue altogether or, even worse, contributed to it by acknowledging it with a wink and a nudge.

The organizers
responded
to criticisms by announcing that the event was “by women for women,” as if to suggest this absolves the advertisement from its wrongs. They went on to say, “the proceeds will serve to further the ambitions of female Liberal candidates through the Judy LaMarsh Fund.” It is notable that this information was offered in response to critics and absent in the
initial
advertisement. Regardless, it still misses the point.

Yes, a lack of women in public office is a significant indicator of the marginalization of an entire gender in society. But that indicator is a symptom of wider and complex social woes. In many ways, it is a symptom specifically sprouting from the very fact that the political agency of women is thought to be restricted to particular political spheres and particular gender-specific issues.

In other words, the Judy LaMarsh Fund exists to assist candidates who are plagued by the precise issue the Ladies’ Night exemplifies.

It’s like treating a runny nose with a stiff dose of influenza. And charging $250 for the pleasure.

Brandon Bailey
is a Juris Doctor candidate at Harvard Law School. He has volunteered on Liberal campaigns.
Semra Sevi
is a Masters candidate in Political Science at the University of Toronto. She was a volunteer co-ordinator on Justin Trudeau’s leadership campaign team in Toronto.

Correction - November 12, 2013:
This article was edited from a previous version that mistakenly said Semra Sevi was the volunteer co-ordinator on Justin Turdeau's leadership campaign.

More on thestar.com

We value respectful and thoughtful discussion. Readers are encouraged to flag comments that fail to meet the standards outlined in our
Community Code of Conduct.
For further information, including our legal guidelines, please see our full website
Terms and Conditions.